i am pro-choice but would like someone to show me where in the constitution it provides for abortion?it for sure isnt in the right to privacy? :confused:
Printable View
i am pro-choice but would like someone to show me where in the constitution it provides for abortion?it for sure isnt in the right to privacy? :confused:
It's been a while since my Constitution exam but here what is I found on a google search.
No decision of the Supreme Court in the twentieth century has been as controversial as the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision holding that women have a right to choose to have an abortion during the first two trimesters of a pregnancy. Attorneys for Roe had suggested several constitutional provisions might be violated by the Texas law prohibiting abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother. The law was said to have been an establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment, unconstitionally vague (the ground used in Blackmun's first draft of his opinion), a denial of equal protection of the laws, and a violation of the Ninth Amendment (which states that certain rights not specified in the first eight amendments are reserved to the people). The Court in Roe chose, however, to base its decision on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the so-called "right of privacy" protected in earlier decisions such as Griswold v Connecticut (striking down a ban on the use, sale, and distribution of contraceptives). Deciding HOW to protect the right to an abortion proved as difficult. Justice Blackmun's approach, one clerk at the time said, "As a practical matter, was not a bad decision--but as a constitutional matter it was absurd." Roe's trimester-based analysis generally prohibits regulation of abortions in the first trimester, allows regulation for protecting the health of the mother in the second trimester, and allows complete abortion bans after six months, the approximate time a fetus becomes viable.
--- http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...w/abortion.htm
the right of privacy??im looking at the constitution as i type and it isnt in there?
Those are implied rights by judicial precedent.
If you really wanna break it down, taken literally, the Constitution doesn't give Americans the right to own a gun. It only states that the army (a well-regulated militia) can have them.
please somebody help?there is nothing in the right to privacy that protects abortion?
There is no right to privacy in the Constitution. Although privacy has been implied by the courts with the 3rd, 4th and 9th Amendments.
your right it dosent.so why did the supreme court invoke it when striking down all state laws restricting abortion?
Like I said, the right to privacy has been implied with the 3rd, 4th, 9th and even the 14th Amendments through judical precedent. And judicial precedent is cited all the time as justification for rulings.
judges,without any constitutional authority,have invalidated numerous state laws.9 unelected officials.the first amendment clearly specifies"congress shall make no law...?
the role of a judge is like the role of an umpire in a baseball game.the umpire does not make the rules.the rules are given to them.their job is to apply the rules.thats it.
I don't understand what you're trying to say with that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by amsterdam
A judge's job is to interpret the Constitution as well as other legal precedents in making a ruling. Different people, thusly different judges, interpret the Constitution in different ways. It could be argued, depending on how you see it, that the 2nd Amendment does not give citizens the right to own a gun. And that argument would be correct. The argument against it would also be correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by amsterdam
Sadly, but not fortuitously, the framers made the Constitution pretty vague. That's why, I think, we have the 9th Amendment.
i agree with the vague comment.
I dont see what its got to do with a government body. It has got everythign to do with the 2 people who are requring said proces.
but it sure isnt protected anywhere in the constitution under the right to privacy.thats why it was legalized the way it was.it would have NEVER passed through the amendment process.another example of 9 unelected officials being activists and not judges.i am pro choice but it was still a sham.